• New Patreon Tier and Early Access Content available. If you would like to support AVForums, we now have a new Patreon Tier which gives you access to selected news, reviews and articles before they are available to the public. Read more.
  • Black Friday Deals
    Visit our Black Friday page for our frequently updated, hand picked deals on TVs and other tech.

Nikon 70-300mm f4-5.6 G or Tamron 70-300 F/4-5.6 LD Macro 1:2

Hitby

Well-known Member
Which of these two would be the better lens? I'm swaying toward the Nikon because, well, it's a Nikon but the Tamron has Macro functionality which I'd like.

Is there really not much in it or is one definitely better than the other?
 

nikonuser11

Distinguished Member
ALL reviews I've seen on web or in Mags has the Nikon coming out best in class not only over the Tamron but others as well:clap:
 

Hitby

Well-known Member
Thanks, I'm wondering if it's worth saving up the (loads) extra for a VR lens :S
 

Hitby

Well-known Member
Yeah, I'm talking about the cheaper (sub 100) non VR versions
 

nikonuser11

Distinguished Member
Are you not thinking about the VR version?

yes I am, apologies OP :blush: The VR one is in a different class, why not save up and get one here or at TP used, prices are very reasonable and they are always coming up.
 

Hitby

Well-known Member
I might do that but the non VRs are available for anywhere from £50 and if I'm using it on a tripod I don't think that I'll miss the extra functionality that much. I've just dropped about 1k on equipment already so another 2-500 for a VR telephoto is out of the question unless I fancy divorce
 

SomeVorn

Active Member
I don't think its just the VR that sets the lens apart. I think the fuss over the VR version is that the optics are better, meaning for sharper brighter images.
 

Strobe

Well-known Member
No experience of the Nikon, but a friend has the Tamron on the Nikon mount and the 70-300 VR is far, far superior; but it's also 4x the price, but still good value at £400 odd. You can get them 2nd hand for £300 odd. The Nikon 55-200 VR is also well-regarded and the 55-300 VR has just been released by Nikon. The 55-300 VR can be had for £260 odd new if you shop around. Of course if you are on a strict budget then you are limiting your options. Personally, I think VR is a must on a consumer telephoto zoom and it's worth saving up (or extending the credit card!) for.
 

Hitby

Well-known Member
Thanks, I'll stick with my 18-105 and 50 for now then until I can afford something a bit better.
 

LD2DVD

Standard Member
Was in a similar position a while back and bought the Nikon 70-300vr and it is indeed excellent, however 6 months later I sold my 18-105 kit lens and bought the Nikon 18-200 VR and since then I have not used my 70-300 as on DX 200mm is equivalent to 300mm in 35mm terms and has been more than enough. I had a Tamron 55-200 and whilst reasonable in price, the quality difference is noticeable. I would rather save for a better lens now than buy cheaper and end up changing again.
 
D

Deleted member 27989

Guest
This was shot using the el cheapo sigma 70-300 APO in Macro mode.

23598665_h6C2R-L.jpg


No VR, no tripod.

I guess it depends on how much use you think it is going to get. Whilst I'm generally of the buy-the-best-you-can ilk I knew I was hardly going to use it.

It does the job I think.
 

Hitby

Well-known Member
wow, that's a lovely shot. :S Is the APO glass significantly better than the cheaper sigma? I'd be really pleased if I'd taken that
 
D

Deleted member 27989

Guest
I don't know to be honest, didn't realise there was a difference :) Mine is the old D version as well which doesn't have an in lens motor as my D70, with which I made that shot, had it built-in.

Haven't used it yet with my D7000 tbh. So the dilemma is, is the Nikon VR really worth 300/400 pounds more?
 

Hitby

Well-known Member
indeed that seems to be the case! The APO lens seems to be available for around 150 new. If I can pick one up second hand for <70 I think I'll go that way for sure :D
 

Hitby

Well-known Member
oh lordy :D
 

LD2DVD

Standard Member
Nice picture.
I would say the most useful i found my 70-300 VR was when I took some photos at an indoor ice hockey match where the light was a bit dimmer. If I did not have a dedicated macro lens then the lens you have would have been one I considered. Incidentally my macro lens is a Tamron so I don't buy only Nikon.
 

Strobe

Well-known Member
Most 'togs I know that have a non-stabilised consumer telephoto zoom graduate to a stabilised version at some stage. Try and take a shot at 300mm at F8 on an over-cast day (typical in this country) and see what I mean!? The Sigma 70-300 APO is indeed a good VFM non-stablised zoom and I had one on a Sony but that had in-body stabilisation. My basic recommendation stands, it's worth saving for one of the Nikon VR variants (which one will depend on your budget).
 

The latest video from AVForums

Guardians of the Galaxy Xmas Special, Strange World, Bones and All, and Cabinet of Dr Caligari in 4K
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom